- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS applications
by Wendy Seltzer March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

At 04:16 AM 3/21/2007, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >May I suggest that the fastest way to conclude a vote on this >appliication is actually to take the vote in the Lisbon meetings. OK, added to the Sunday agenda. --Wendy >On 21/03/07, Wendy Seltzer ><<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: >At 03:13 AM 3/21/2007, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > >Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > > > > These larger questions you reference are important, but if you > do not deal > > > with the question at hand pretty quickly, then the likelihood of another > > > Ombudsman investigation of ALS applications is a real possibility. > > > >Fine. > >Just to clarify -- I'm prepared to withstand challenge from the >ombudsman on his reinterpretation of our substantive criteria for >evaluating ALS applicants. The responsibility for defining those >falls squarely on ALAC, consistent with the Bylaws, and so long as we >have a rational, reasoned basis for our application of those >criteria, he has no power to change that, even at the vociferous >complaint of a denied applicant. > >In order not to give applicants a claim of "undue delay," however, I >move that we open and conduct a new vote ASAP (since we have already >heard objections, we're past the point of a no objections approval of >this applicant). > >--Wendy > >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- <mailto:wendy@seltzer.org>wendy(a)seltzer.org >Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society ><http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > > > > >-- >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart >PO Box 32160 >London N4 2XY >United Kingdom >UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 >USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 >Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 >mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 >Win IM: <mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com>ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / >AIM/iSight: <mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com>nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: >nashtonhart >Online >Bio: ><https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart>https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS applications
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

Of course I don't mean to suggest that At-Large should not encourage any organisation that is eligible from joining the NCUC, just that At-Large should not turn down organisations that are clearly modelled around a mission and purpose that is very "At-Large". On 21/03/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > > It is important to say, though, that the ALAC's admission of applicants > and > > the criteria which it uses to decide admission actually do not have > > anything > > to do with NCUC or any other constituency - and vice versa. If they were > > meant to do so the Bylaws would provide for that to be the case, and > > they do > > not. As has been pointed out, those who qualify for membership in both > are > > entirely welcome at present to join them both if they wish to do so so - > as > > a result of which there cannot be any competition for members. That > would > > only be possible if membership in one constituency precluded membership > in > > the other. > > That may be true in the abstract, but as the NCUC is a member-supported > constituency, while the ALAC is ICANN-supported, non-commercial > organizations offered a choice between the two might incorrectly choose > ALAC (incorrectly because they'd then get no path to GNSO votes), which > is a real and valid concern of NCUC. Even if the bylaws don't > explicitly provide for the situation, I think we have an independent > obligation to Internet users not to further weaken the voting > non-commercial civil society component of ICANN. > > --Wendy > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 > Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALS applications
by Wendy Seltzer March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

(moving discussion to public list, since guidelines are linked publicly) Interesting, but plainly different from what we've been operating under to date. Your second criterion would not be my interpretation of the Bylaws' command that ALSs be "established in such a way that participation by individual Internet users ... will predominate in the operation of each At-Large Structure." Given that this is the only place individuals are recognized as participants, I'd hate to water down their voices even more by putting them in contention with organizations. Further, I'd rather see ALAC and NCUC cooperating than competing for members. I think it's right for us to suggest that orgs-of-orgs join the NCUC. --Wendy Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Committee: > > I'm happy to be able to get this to you now - sorry for the delay but I thought > it would be important that it be very solid from a legal perspective. > > It is attached to the agenda page now too > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director, At-Large > ICANN > PO Box 32160 > London N4 2XY > United Kingdom -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

3 2

The Resolutions for the Lisbon Meeting
by Carlton A Samuels March 20, 2007

March 20, 2007

Dear LACRALO Members: The ALAC has drafted several policy resolutions with intent to pursue them at the Lisbon Meeting. These are both numbered and named: AL/2007/R/1: Domain Tasting/Monetisation which can be seen on the ALAC wiki at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_1; AL/2007/R/2: Contractual Compliance, Registry Issues at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_2; AL/2007/R/3: Internationalised Domain Names at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_3. In respect of AL/2007/R/2, the Secretariat recommends that our ALAC representatives be authorized to vote IN FAVOUR, as stated. In respect of AL/2007/R/1, the LACRALO Secretariat recommends a revised final paragraph which clearly resolves all the previous whereas. That aside, the Secretariat is persuaded to the view that this matter is outside of ICANNs remit. We therefore recommend that a statement that resolves the sense of ALAC be prepared. We further recommend that the statement be in the form of a non-binding resolution which, in effect, advises ICANN to exert its moral influence in the several fora and in concert with others, inveigh against the practice. The Secretariat recommends that our ALAC representatives be authorized to support this position. In respect of AL/2007/R/3, the LACRALO Secretariat recommends that Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 of the resolution be changed from We strongly suggest the following principles be followed in policy-making and technical application process: to We are resolved that the following principles be adopted for policy-making and the technical application process: The LACRALO Secretariat further recommends that our ALAC representatives be authorized to vote IN FAVOUR of the amended resolution. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels [Spanish Version] Queridos LACRALO Members: El ALAC ha redactado varias resoluciones de la política con la intención para seguirlos en la Reunión de Lisboa. Estos son numerados y son denominados: AL/2007/R/1: Domain Tasting/Monetisation de dominio que puede ser visto en el wiki de ALAC en https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_1 ; AL/2007/R/2: Contractual Compliance, Registry Issues en https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_2 ; AL/2007/R/3: Internationalised Domain Names en https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_3 . En el respeto de AL/2007/R/2, que la Secretaría recomienda que nuestros representantes de ALAC sean autorizados a votar EN el FAVOR, como indicado. En el respeto de AL/2007/R/1, la Secretaría de LACRALO recomienda un párrafo final revisado que se resuelve claramente todo el previo "mientras que". Eso aparte, la Secretaría es persuadida a la vista que este asunto está fuera de ICANN remite. Nosotros por lo tanto recomienda que una declaración que se resuelva el sentido de ALAC es preparada. Recomendamos aún más que la declaración esté en forma de una resolución no-obligatorio que, del hecho, aconseja ICANN a ejercer su influencia moral en el varios fora y en el concierto con otros, vitupera contra la práctica. La Secretaría recomienda que nuestros representantes de ALAC sean autorizados a sostener esta posición. En el respeto de AL/2007/R/3, la Secretaría de LACRALO recomienda ese Párrafo 3, la Oración 2 de la resolución son cambiadas de "sugerimos totalmente que los principios siguientes son seguidos en la elaboración de la política y la aplicación técnica procesa:" a "somos resueltos que los principios siguientes son adoptados para la elaboración de la política y la aplicación técnica procesa:" La Secretaría de LACRALO recomienda aún más que nuestros representantes de ALAC sean autorizados a votar EN el FAVOR de la resolución enmendada. Los saludos, Carlton Samuels

1 0

Fwd: ALAC Chair Resigns from Chair Position for Health Reasons
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 19, 2007

March 19, 2007

Dear All: I have the unfortunate duty to forward the news below - which some of you may have already seen - from the Chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee. May I say personally - and I'm sure on behalf of all the ICANN Staff too - that we wish you a speedy recovery Annette - and I'm sure you'll be back in your usual form soon :) Begin forwarded message: > From: Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de> > Date: 18 March 2007 14:58:30 GMT > To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton(a)spamcop.net> > Subject: [Fwd: personal news] > > Dear ALAC fellows, > > For weeks and weeks I have been hoping to recover, but my lungs are > still causing trouble. It now became clear that I will not be able to > take part in the Lisbon meeting. > > In view of the uncertainty about how long I will not not be able to > function fully as ALAC Chair, I have come to the conclusion that I > should ask you to elect someone else from our team to carry the > responsibilities of ALAC Chair. This has been a very difficult > decision > for me as I was earnestly trying to discharge the responsibilities you > have entrusted me with. > > Meanwhile, I'm slowly recovering and hope to be back at my regular job > with the new responsibilities that have been kindly assigned to me as > soon as possible. Needless to say, I also look forward to being > back on > the ALAC team and wish you all and ALAC the very best. > > Once again, I would like to thank you all for your trust, support, > cooperation and understanding. > > Annette -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

Have a great Lisbon Meeting!
by Annette Muehlberg March 19, 2007

March 19, 2007

Dear All, I would like to congratulate those regions who made large steps forward to strengthen the bottom-up structure of ICANN and get individual end-users involved in its decision making processes. I am looking forward to the inauguration of new Regional At-Large Organisations! We all know, this is only the first step and the real hard work just starts as we do not want to create bureaucratic monsters but vivid organisations with a lot of inputs by and in the interest of individual internet users. There is a lot to do and it is great that so many people came together to dedicate their time for this work. Unfortunately I will not be able to take part in the Lisbon meeting and asked the ALAC to elect someone else from our team to carry the responsibilities of ALAC Chair. I hope I have been of help to you and would like to thank you all for your trust, support, and great cooperation. I wish you all the best for this exciting ICANN Meeting in Lisbon. I will try and join you virtually. See you in June in Puerto Rico Annette

2 1

Resolutions on Policy Matters for Lisbon
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

Dear At-Large Community: In order to facilitate discussion of the three resolutions being proposed for adoption in Lisbon, I have put them up on the Wiki as follows: Domain Tasting / Monetisation: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? al_2007_r_1 Contractual Compliance, Registry Issues: https://st.icann.org/alac/ index.cgi?al_2007_r_2 Internationalised Domain Names: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? al_2007_r_3 NEXT STEPS: 1) I will incorporate, as separate revisions so that you can see the changes which have been suggested on the ALAC worldwide discussion forum, as individual edits. 2) I will reformulate them all so that they are structured similarly - to the maximum extent possible making no changes of substance in doing so - also in single revisions so that this is easy to see. 3) Once step 1 and 2 are done, I will translate the texts into French and Spanish - this will take a couple of days though. I will ask our faithful regional liaisons for Africa (Anne-Rachel Inne) and LAC Pablo Hinojosa then to help keep the updates to the English versions current with the French and Spanish versions once the translations arrive. Note that the idea is to adopt these in Lisbon. AS A RESULT INPUT IS NEEDED NOW FROM THE FOLLOWING REGIONS, SINCE THEY WILL NOT BE MEETING IN FULL SESSION IN LISBON like Africa and Europe: LAC North America Asia/Pacific IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS TO MAKE ON ANY OR ALL OF THESE: For ease of reading please use the comment button at the top of the page. You may also send email to the pages of the wiki, which will then appear as comments at the bottom and show you as the person who made the comments. Here are links: Domain Tasting Contractual Compliance IDNS It is helpful if you copy the comment to the worldwide ALAC list at alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org as well so that everyone sees the new comment. If you haven't joined this list, I recommend you do so at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org These resolutions are scheduled for debate, amendment, and if consensus is achieved adoption in a combined meeting of the European, African, and the ALAC on 27th March between 13:00 and 18:00. Full agenda details for that meeting can be found at https://st.icann.org/ alac/index.cgi?second_session. There will be a remote participation facility for this meeting. Details for how to attend that way will be available on the url immediately above early this coming week. If you do not see links above, here is how to use the comment feature: Send an email to: alac(a)st.icann.org, and for the subject line, for domain tasting, use 'AL/2007/R/1' without the quotes, for Contractual Compliance, 'AL/2007/R/2', and for IDNs 'AL/2007/R/3' -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

Information on the GNSO and Policy Development Process
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

Dear Community: Since I know many ALSes are not intimately familiar with the GNSO and the GNSO Policy Development Process, I have drawn up an informational document which describes both and includes the graphical representation of the process previously forwarded. I hope you will find this helpful, especially when you are considering the draft resolutions which in the current draft call for a PDP to be initiated. The attached will help you understand what that means, and the other avenues associated with, and connected to, the full formal PDP process which can also be used, or which can be complimentary to, the full PDP process. Note that French, Spanish, and Portuguese translations of the attached documents will be available next week. All of these will be posted on the Wikis for the various regions as well and I will email those links when they are available. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Recommendation on contract enforcement by the public
by Wendy Seltzer March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

[Third time's the charm? Apparently my earlier attempts to post this were eaten by a spam blocker.] If ICANN't keep a contract, let the public enforce it Earlier in the Registerfly controversy, ICANN Vice President Paul Levins posted to the ICANN Blog <http://blog.icann.org/?p=32>, ICANN is not a regulator. We rely mainly on contract law. We do not condone in any way whatsoever RegisterFly's business practice and behaviour. This is disingenuous. ICANN is the central link in a web of contracts that regulate the business of domain name allocation. ICANN has committed, as a public benefit corporation, to enforcing those contracts in the public interest. Domain name registrants, among others, rely on those contracts to establish a secure, stable environment for domain name registration and through that for online content location. A user registers a domain name by contracting with a registrar, such as Registerfly. The terms of that agreement are constrained by ICANN's accreditation contract with the registrar <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm>. French registrar Gandi <http://gandi.net/> explains this web with helpful diagrams in its registration agreement <http://www.gandi.net/contracts/en/g1/pdf/>: Gandi is a Registrar, accredited by both the Trustee Authority [ICANN] and registry of each TLD to assign and manage domain names according to their specific TLD. We must abide by the terms and conditions of Our accreditation contract. As a consequence, We must pass some of Our obligations on to Our customers. ... As such, We commit Ourselves to providing you with the best possible service. This being said, due to Our contractual obligations with the Trustee Authorities and Registries, and which You must also abide by, Our services are limited in some of their technical, legal, regulatory and contractual aspects. Now the ICANN contracts can both limit and help the end-user registrant. On the limit side, they restrict the registrant's ability to maintain anonymity or privacy by requiring the registrar to provide accurate identifying information to the WHOIS database <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.2>, a duty the registrar fulfills by compelling provision of accurate information in its own contract with the registrant. This requirement benefits trademark holders, who have recently turned out <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-services-comments/> to prophesy doom if data display is limited. On the benefit side, the RAA-imposed duty of data escrow <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.6>, requiring the registrar to maintain an escrowed copy of its registration database, provides evidence of a registrant's domain name holdings in the event of registrar failure. Registrants seeing this provision could believe that their domain names would be secure even if the registrar who had recorded them defaulted. So they might have believed, but apparently ICANN has never enforced this provision of its contracts <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06000.html>. Moreover, ICANN denies that the public is a third-party beneficiary entitled to demand enforcement <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#5.10>. The Registerfly debacle <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070307_079128.ht…> shows why this view is wrong as a matter of law and policy. ICANN was told more than a year ago of customer service problems at Registerfly, but did nothing to respond to those complaints, including escrowing data, leaving the company's 200,000 registrants at risk of losing domain names or the ability to update them when Registerfly's business troubles escalated early this year. ICANN should recognize that the reason for its registrar contracts is precisely to benefit third parties: domain name registrants and those who rely on the domain name system. ICANN is not (or shouldn't be) accrediting registrars merely to have a larger pool of organizations paying fealty to it. Rather, it is imposing terms and conditions on registrars and, with an "ICANN accredited" seal, inviting the public to rely on those terms for a secure domain name registration. In cases where ICANN fails <http://omblog.icann.org/?p=6> to recognize a registrar's problems <http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/19/registerfly_angry_customers/>, concerned members of the public should be entitled to take action themselves. As well as enforcing public-benefit obligations on its own, ICANN should facilitate individual action by removing the "no third-party beneficiary" language from its contracts. Resolved that: Recognizing that the public Internet users are intended beneficiaries of ICANN should strike the "no third-party beneficiary" language from its Registrar Accreditation Agreements and Registry Agreements; ICANN should promptly adopt a schedule and provisions for escrowing of data from all registrars, as envisioned in RAA 3.6. -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

5 6

Registerfly accreditation terminated
by Vittorio Bertola March 17, 2007

March 17, 2007

ICANN has terminated Registerfly's accreditation. In 15 days, names will be transferred to other registrars. http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-16mar07.htm -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0